Quote:
Originally Posted by Mslday
This brings to mind the two Canadian doctor's who discovered that botox had significant applications for cosmetic purposes, Dr. Jean Carruthers & Dr. Alastair Carruthers. I don't know what the ethical obligations of Canadian doctors are but I assume it is much the same as the AMA. I read an interview with this dynamic duo where they discussed this very issue. Early on in their discovery they made a conscious decision to share the information with the medical world without applying for a patent. Ultimately they decided that it was the right thing to do despite the fact that they knew they would not make money off it once the information was released.
Is it the simply smell of money behind this or is it the laws that allow the arguments to be put forth? Perhaps it's both?
|
So the two Canadian doctors who had discovered the cosmetic use of what became to be known as Botox had intentionally foresworn a patent (which would now be
highly valued) in the belief that their discovery should be freely available to all. And now we have pain management physicians at Stanford placing a patent on the use of the same drug in a purely palliative procedure.
That is quite the coda! Thank you.
Mike
PS Any further answer to your question as to this phenomena arising out of the nature of the law, where the patent statute in the U.S. hasn't changed in any material fashion since 1952, would require an examination of the composition of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees it. I suspect - but do not know - that such an examination would show a greater swing towards "free market oriented judges" on that court over the last decade or so.